Christenson v. Davidson ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK C. CHRISTENSON, Plaintiff, 20-CV-6731 (CM) ~against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL DAVID DAVIDSON, UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff was barred from filing any new action in forma pauperis (IFP) without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See Christenson v. Roe, ECF 1:18-CV-3319, 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2018). Plaintiff files this new pro se case, but he does not seek leave to proceed IFP nor does he pay the filing fees. The Court assumes for the purpose of this order that he seeks to proceed IFP. Because Plaintiff has not sought leave of the Court to file, this action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the June 20, 2018 order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 21, 2020 , New York, New York hie. hi Chief United States District Judge